What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
Well, can you convince me that Pakistan has tried its best to get a result out of the negotiations?

I don't have to Stealth - when you admitted yourself so many posts ago that India is merely interested in perpetuating the Status Quo, and trying to "integrate" the Kashmiris by force and/or development.

When you admit that is India's policy, a policy of "dilly dallying" essentially (WRT to resolving the issue with Pakistan), then there is no need for me to show anything about what Pakistan has done.

Notice which nation keeps calling for ignoring the Kashmir dispute and moving on to trade and other issues.
 
I don't have to Stealth - when you admitted yourself so many posts ago that India is merely interested in perpetuating the Status Quo, and trying to "integrate" the Kashmiris by force and/or development.

When you admit that is India's policy, a policy of "dilly dallying" essentially (WRT to resolving the issue with Pakistan), then there is no need for me to show anything about what Pakistan has done.

Notice which nation keeps calling for ignoring the Kashmir dispute and moving on to trade and other issues.

But then I can retort by saying that Pakistan has sabotaged Kashmir by alternating between proxy war and open war....thus making it impossible to conduct any negotiations....

...so we're stuck, aren't we?
 
But then I can retort by saying that Pakistan has sabotaged Kashmir by alternating between proxy war and open war....thus making it impossible to conduct any negotiations....

...so we're stuck, aren't we?

Not at all - the support for the insurgency, and the insurgency itself, is a result of people believing that India is not sincere about resolving the issue through diplomatic channels, hence the resort to violence.

So even here I argue that India is to blame.

And notice that even with the dramatic drop in violence in Kashmir, there is no movement by India on resolving the issue.

In fact you argue that an end to violence is not enough, that then the separatist groups must "participate in elections" and then India might consider their "agenda".

So essentially more of the same, regardless of what the situation on the ground is - continuously shifting goal posts - a lack of sincerity in resolving the dispute with Pakistan.
 
Not at all - the support for the insurgency, and the insurgency itself, is a result of people believing that India is not sincere about resolving the issue through diplomatic channels, hence the resort to violence.

What came first...the chicken or the egg?

And notice that even with the dramatic drop in violence in Kashmir, there is no movement by India on resolving the issue.

Dunno...there seems to be a lot of movement...J&K CM just held a meeting with Manmohan over greater autonomy....Pakistani PM seems eager to solve the issue...official Indo-Pak talks are being held on May 21st...trade across the LOC is being discussed.

I'd say things are moving pretty quickly...

Of course, it depends on how things behave over the summer...since summertime is peak militant activity...with melting snow, infiltration jumps.

In fact you argue that an end to violence is not enough, that then the separatist groups must "participate in elections" and then India might consider their "agenda".

I'm just speculating...I have no idea what is going to happen.

Jeez...please...and this applies to everybody on this forum...try to differenciate between the word of Manmohan Singh and some jobless student.

So essentially more of the same, regardless of what the situation on the ground is - continuously shifting goal posts - a lack of sincerity in resolving the dispute with Pakistan.

Lets see...personally, I feel that India will hold on to kashmir as long as it can, for several very clinching reasons.

However, if the current Indo-Pak momentum continues, you might just see some significant changes in the valley.
 
Gentlemen - Please take the tangential Balochistan and FATA discussion to an appropriate thread, there are several.
 
Doesn't the Shimla Accord overrule the UN Resolution?

The UN resolutions overrule Simla Agreement according to International Law.

"The Charter also embodies certain principles of international law, including those on the peaceful settlement of disputes and the use of force, as well as the right of self-defence. And (and this may be its chief “constitutional” element) it provides that in the event of a conflict between obligations under the Charter and obligations under any other international agreement, the obligations under the Charter prevail"
http://www.law.leeds.ac.uk/leedslaw/webdocs/leedslaw/uploadeddocuments/cfig-wood.doc

However, even Simla Agreement says the UN resolutions will be followed.
 
Stealth:

eez...please...and this applies to everybody on this forum...try to differenciate between the word of Manmohan Singh and some jobless student.

lol.

I thought you got into something a few months ago?

I agree with you on how there are certain improvements taking place, and I also agree with you that if militancy remains at the levels it has with a democratic government in place in Pakistan, it might be interpreted as a lasting change.

Trade and travel across the LOC is an extremely important step, and I think that if it blossoms, and reduces the sense of "division" and alienation among the Kashmiris, it might result in more support (from the Kashmiris) for some sort of solution that looks at the LOC as a solution, with perhaps both Kashmir's enjoying the special status they have currently, but within each country.
 
But then I can retort by saying that Pakistan has sabotaged Kashmir by alternating between proxy war and open war....thus making it impossible to conduct any negotiations....

...so we're stuck, aren't we?

Even if it were a proxy war being carried out by Pakistan, isn't it justified? If Bangladesh invades India (imagine), then says "we're waiting for every Indian terrorist to stop fighting us, then we'll leave", you'd be outraged I'm sure by such reasoning. Why then apply a different standard to Kashmir? India invades Kashmir, then grabs Kashmir by force, incorporates it into the Indian Constitution against the will of the Kashmiri people, and then complains when Kashmiris fight back! Where is the logic to what you say?

(Btw, Pakistan isn't involved in the proxy war in Kashmir. It is a home grown rebellion).
 
(Btw, Pakistan isn't involved in the proxy war in Kashmir. It is a home grown rebellion).

Amusing!!

Beginning of a new trend


By Dr Tariq Rahman

THE last fortnight has seen about half a dozen bombings leading to violent deaths in the country. The pattern followed is that of suicide attacks which were common in Palestine/Israel and then in Iraq.

Pakistan has seen a lot of sectarian violence in the last 20 years, attacks on the military leadership during the last five years and some suicide attacks. However, with so many incidents coming in a row, one fears that this may be the beginning of a new trend, a grisly beginning to an ending nobody knows.

While the sectarian nature of some attacks may be conceded, most are attacks on the symbols of the state or its ruling elite. Indeed, with the women students of Islamabad’s religious seminaries up in arms and the Jamaat-i-Islami condemning Musharraf’s Kashmir policy openly, the ongoing confrontation between parts of the state and the radical Islamists seems to have entered a new phase.

Whether we will be unsafe when we leave our homes, whether our children will be threatened with death in their schools or whether the state will descend into anarchy – these questions remain unanswered. But what has created such conditions can be given some partial answers. This is attempted below.

One answer is that the ruling elite of Pakistan itself dug the hole in which it finds itself. First, it passed the Objectives Resolution which did away with the theoretical basis of democracy (rule by the people – ‘demos’) by declaring that sovereignty lies with God. This looks fine on paper but, if you think about it, God’s will or intention or the meaning of His sacred texts will be interpreted by human beings. And, of course, these interpreters are the ulema – that, at least, is the claim of the religious forces in the country.


In short, without saying so, our founding fathers laid down the basis for a Sunni version of the Velayat-i-Faqih. However, being hypocritical, the ruling elite always denied real power to the ulema in the apparatus of the state.


The power rested with the bureaucracy and the military – later the military dominated other elitist groups – and they co-opted the ulema as well as the feudal landowners.

In order to curb ethnicity and to keep ruling East Bengal, Balochistan, Sindh and the NWFP, the military elite, which was predominantly Punjabi, kept using the symbols of Islam and Urdu.


However, when symbols are used by the education system, the TV, the radio and the press, they tend to become homogenised and widespread. Thus, the ordinary Pakistani became pro-war, anti-India, anti-Israel and anti-West.


All these positions were couched in the idiom of religion. Hence, purely secular, nationalistic endeavours – like ruling East Bengal and winning the whole Kashmir state for Pakistan – were made to appear as Islamic endeavours. That is why the resistance to General Musharraf’s deviation from some previous policies seems to be against Islam itself to some of his opponents. This is one of the many holes the ruling elite dug for itself.


During 1971 Yahya Khan’s government used the idiom of religion to suppress Bengalis. The militant organisations Al-Shams and Al-Badar were created and supported by the military. Then, during the Afghan war the American proxy war against the Soviet army was also called a jihad. Pakistan participated enthusiastically in it and militants fighting in the name of Islam came to Pakistan and some settled down here.

The effects of the Mujahideen victory in Afghanistan and the earlier Iranian revolution soon became visible in Pakistan where Islam was of the Barelvi type. It was mixed up with the veneration of the saints and was not of the hard, puritanical type. However, American and Saudi money increased the Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadith presence so much that a harder, more radical and inflexible interpretation of Islam gained prominence at least in the NWFP and Balochistan. The Iranian revolution raised political consciousness and also gave Islamists the idea that they too could gain power in the modern world.

Then, most significantly, the Pakistani state (through the army and the intelligence agencies) began to use Islamic militants to fight a proxy war with India in Kashmir . Many of these militant groups were also anti-Shia. Thus, one fallout of the proxy war in Kashmir was the violence against the Shias which started during Ziaul Haq’s time and has not come to an end till now.

The organisations, trained in the battlegrounds of Afghanistan and Kashmir and brought up on the doctrine of hatred, challenged the state several times. When General Musharraf took power even earlier than 9/11, the journal Sahifa Ahle Hadith (Karachi) condemned him as a stooge of America. This position is reminiscent of Sayyid Qutb’s (1906-66) theory of ‘jahiliyah’ – that modern culture as well as the ruling elite in Muslim countries are like the pre-Islamic Arab society (i.e. sunk in ignorance).

Before 9/11, such vitriolic condemnation was unusual in Pakistan. After that event, when General Musharraf reversed the policy of proxy war in Kashmir and banned some Islamist organisations, it gained more currency and popular legitimacy.

General Musharraf sought to co-opt the clergy and created such a political vacuum (mainly by eliminating Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) that Islam-oriented political parties came to rule the NWFP and Balochistan.

At the same time, he fought against the Taliban presence and influence in Waziristan and militants who were after his own blood in the country. Now that the Taliban influence has increased in the Pashtun areas in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the government finds its writ no longer running in much of the tribal areas.

Not all the policies which have backfired are those of the opportunistic Pakistani ruling elite. Some are those of foreign powers. For instance, Israel’s unjust policies towards the Palestinians and America’s support of them, America’s occupation of Iraq and threat to Iran, Britain’s enhanced vigilance of its Muslim population, Europe’s mistrust of Muslims and, of course, Muslim resistance and intransigence to western values – all of these are contributing to the hardening of attitudes.

One of the lessons of the Iraq war which the militants seem to have learned is that indiscriminate violence and that of a highly ruthless kind, pay dividends. This is what is happening in Pakistan. The militant Islamists are striking out at targets which will spread terror. Low-paid employees are dying. One hopes that they do not become so disheartened that they lose heart in defending sensitive places.

There are several other related problems which may strengthen the militants further. First, our common people have been given a diet of nationalism and jingoism in the idiom of Islam for a long time. They may reject policies to create peace with India in relation to Kashmir with such intensity as to revive the proxy war in that region. This would strengthen the militants.

Second, there may be functionaries of state who still believe in using the militants in Kashmir. They may be biding their time in the hope that their previous policies will be revived some day. They too will keep militants powerful.

Third, General Musharraf, in order to eliminate the threat of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, will reduce the strength of the moderates and, indirectly, strengthen the Islamic forces as a whole.

Fourth, the United States may attack Iran, or let Israel do so, which will create more Islamic militants in Pakistan and elsewhere. And, lastly, the Americans will perpetuate such horrors in Iraq that its only response will be increased Islamic militancy all over the world with spillover effects in Pakistan.

As we can see, the ruling elite of Pakistan can change some of these variables but not all. Even those it can change it may not, because changes will be against powerful sections of the elite. Moreover, changes such as reducing the contents of textbooks which are anti-India and pro-war will be seen as playing into the hands of the US and will be resisted.

However, if changes are not made -- such as encouraging the genuine participation of all political leaders and parties in the political process, giving pro-peace messages through the media and incorporating these in textbooks, abandoning all forms of militancy in Kashmir — this country will slide into mayhem and anarchy.

Our airports, railway stations, bus stops, schools and hospitals will become unsafe. We do not want that to happen. Can we stop it from happening? Perhaps not, but we can at least understand what is at stake and oppose policies which make us so unsafe.

DAWN - Opinion; February 13, 2007

This is from DAWN.

There is no proxy war and they are talking out of their bonnet?

Why live in a state of denial?

But, of course, if you are ignorant of the issue, then that is a different matter!
 
Amusing!!



This is from DAWN.

There is no proxy war and they are talking out of their bonnet?

Why live in a state of denial?

But, of course, if you are ignorant of the issue, then that is a different matter!

Newspaper journalists tend to be not so bright or accurate "dude". Anyway, it is acknowledged that the major militant movements in Kashmir are the Kashmiris themselves - Hizbul..Even the Indian government admits this. There might be some degree of cross border infiltration by some smaller groups, but the big groups are Kashmir grown.
 
Salim said:
And if you are fro such a jihadi family, why are you not there??

I was talked out of it by an al badr commander......they want us to raise money and create awarness.
For every 1 freedom fighter on the field there are 4 people behind him to keep him going.
Who drives the cars,cooks,raises money ect.......every person can not go and fight.
Out of a million indian soilders how many actually fight and how many are behind them in supporting roles.

Without intentionally derailing this thread. This was an amusing exchange ;) I would have to agree with Salim, and his "why are you not there" line of questioning :tup:

Being "talked out of it by an Al-Badr commander :yahoo: Else no doubts our resident Rambo would have been making the armies round the world bleed! Lucky for the armies! Instead he wants other people to die for a cause he isn't prepared to fight in himself! What heroism! Quelle héroïsme!
 
On the same lines, I once saw a good post by a Pakistani member on this forum where he lamented that the only person who needs to die in a terrorist attack is the terrorist himself. All others in the chain who are bigger culprits roam around freely and they are free to replace the dead terrorist by brainwashing the youth. They even get to chose which widow to marry after the terrorist becomes a "martyr"!

Of course he was talking about the Pakistani Taliban terrorists murdering innocents in mosques and market places, but I guess the same is true for all terrorist organizations, at least those operating in Kashmir.

Hafeez Sayeed does not worry about his personal life being at danger when he sends crazed fanatics to die in India. So do the others in "support functions".

Once they are made to feel a constant danger in the "support" and "motivation" roles, I am sure many of them will be "talked out" of that role too by someone!
 
Of course he was talking about the Pakistani Taliban terrorists murdering innocents in mosques and market places, but I guess the same is true for all terrorist organizations, at least those operating in Kashmir.

I would agree that terrorists murdering innocents in mosques and market places is wrong, and firmly believe the Indian Army stop commiting such acts in Kashmir ;)

Document - India: Impunity must end in Jammu and Kashir | Amnesty International
Thousands lost in Kashmir mass graves | Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch Report (1999)
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kashmir/1996/India-09.htm#TopOfPage
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kashmir/1996/India-07.htm#TopOfPage
Behind the Kashmir Conflict - Threats against Human Rights Defenders (Human Rights Watch Report, July 1999)
 
Stealth:
What came first...the chicken or the egg?
IIRC, the insurgency started in 1989, so I would argue that Indian "dilly dallying" caused the insurgency - you had 42 years of no movement towards a resolution.

As far as Pakistan was concerned, Indian aggression in 1971 and on Siachen cemented the view that not only was India not interested in resolving the dispute diplomatically, but also in weakening Pakistan as much as it could. Within that context, Pakistan cannot be blamed for supporting the insurgency once it started (or even helping start it).
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom